I’ve been deeply involved with election theory for over a decade; and currently, I’m on the board of Electology.org (the Center for Election Science) and studying a doctorate in statistics at Harvard in order to further this interest. So when I heard about the problems with the current Hugo nominations, I had just the resources to help. On the guest posts by Bruce Schneier on the Making Light blog, I helped design and simulate a proportional voting system especially for the Hugo process’s needs, and now I’d like to go to Sasquan so that I can help explain it in the business meeting.

Time at the business meeting is likely to be very limited with several different proposals being put forward. It is probably more important to get the information out on various SF websites beforehand rather than hope to get a detailed presentation at the business meeting.

Geoff Thorpe: It seems to me that having Jameson there couldn’t hurt. And IMO he has done such yeoman work on this system and in the voting discussions as a whole that he deserves a free trip to Sasquan.

What I like about this is that Quinn has been trying to present himself as a neutral party. But he’s clearly got a horse in this race by trying to change the rules to exclude Puppy-like efforts.

He’s helped design a “voting system especially for the Hugo process’s needs”? Sorry, the Hugo process has no needs. But apparently some groups have a need to change the “Hugo process” and Mr. Quinn is clearly supporting that effort, not a neutral party.

That said, I support his efforts, in spirit if not with cash. I look forward to hearing of his contribution to the business meeting. I know credentialism is a big thing, so hopefully his resume will carry weight. Though I suspect not.

LostSailor: “What I like about this is that Quinn has been trying to present himself as a neutral party. But he’s clearly got a horse in this race by trying to change the rules to exclude Puppy-like efforts.”

And the problem with changing the rules to prevent gaming of the nomination process by bloc-voting slates is…?

LostSailor: “He’s helped design a “voting system especially for the Hugo process’s needs”? Sorry, the Hugo process has no needs.”

Yes, the Hugo process does have a need: to avoid being susceptible to being gamed by bloc-voting slates is.

But he’s clearly got a horse in this race by trying to change the rules to exclude Puppy-like efforts. </blockquote

"Reduce the impact of" ≠ "exclude".

He’s helped design a “voting system especially for the Hugo process’s needs”? Sorry, the Hugo process has no needs.

From a ludicrously pedantic standpoint, this is correct — a process is not a person, and so has no needs.

However, the Hugo process is the result of the actions of fans, who are people, and is administered by people as well, who may well decide that they do indeed have needs, to be decided on at the next two business meetings.

But he’s clearly got a horse in this race by trying to change the rules to exclude Puppy-like efforts.

“Reduce the impact of” ≠ “exclude”.

He’s helped design a “voting system especially for the Hugo process’s needs”? Sorry, the Hugo process has no needs.

From a ludicrously pedantic standpoint, this is correct — a process is not a person, and so has no needs.

However, the Hugo process is the result of the actions of fans, who are people, and is administered by people as well, who may well decide that they do indeed have needs, to be decided on at the next two business meetings.

When it comes to cabals, I prefer open cabals to secret cabals. The push to suddenly change the rules (well, as suddenly as is possible under WorldCon rules) was predictable–and indeed predicted–and I’m all for it. Go ahead.

I’m just amused by the faux impartiality and the appeal to credentialism.

But at least be honest about it all, you’d really love to exclude the Puppy supported works, but any rules changes that could even potentially do that will also work to the Puppies favor. So, as others have said in this thread, the best you can hope for is to reduce the impact of Puppy fan voters.

There’s no “faux” impartiality there. Unless you are unhappy about him not being impartial about voting procedures. Though he’s certainly not pretending to be impartial about voting procedures; understanding what works well and what doesn’t is his expertise.

What Nate said. You want an expert, I presume because math is hard, so go at it. We’ve seen the proposals and we’ve talked about them. We are well aware you want to change the rules in order to secure your place (mob rule indeed).

BTW, we are utterly unimpressed with the suggestions so far. By far the safest suggestion has been Nick M’s #1 followed by #3.

Morris Keesan: “He’s currently up to $1365 out of his requested $1400, and he committed to going if he raised at least $1000”

Yes, but it still would be nice if a few more people who support the rules changes would be willing to chip in a few bucks each, because the budget he’s set is extremely austere, and he’ll be scraping the bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of food and lodging.